Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Manish Gulati on 13 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK KUMAR-II, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CBI Vs. Manish Gulati Case No. : CBI/164/2019 FIR/RC No. : DAI-2002-A-0003 U/s : 120B/420/468/471 IPC Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/ND JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : DLCT12-000517-2019
b) The date of commission : Between the month of August,
of the offences 1998 to March, 1999.
c) Name of the Complainant : Source Information.
d) Name, parentage & address : 1) Manish Gulati S/o Late Sh.
Baldev Raj Gulati, R/o House No.
156, Swastik Kunj, Sector-13,
Rohini, Delhi.
2) 'A' (name concealed as he was
declared juvenile vide order dated
20.12.2017).
e) Offences complained of : 120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC
and substantive offences thereof.
f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati DEEPAK KUMAR
Date: Page No. 1 of 31
KUMAR 2025.08.13
16:08:26
+0530
h) Date of institution of case : 30.09.2005
i) Date of Judgment : 13.08.2025
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Accused Manish Gulati (A1) is facing trial for the commission of
offences punishable under section 120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC
alongwith substantive offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC with
allegations that he alongwith co-accused ‘A'(name concealed as he was
declared juvenile vide order dated 20.12.2017) between the period from
August, 1998 to March, 1999, had entered into criminal conspiracy to
forge quotations of M/s Gupta Trading, M/s Srikrishna Enterprises, M/s
Goyal Automobiles, M/s Kaushik Brothers and M/s Auto Tools. It is
further alleged that they used those forged quotations thereby cheating
the MCD by obtaining 80% of the work allotted by auto work shop of
MCD on non competitive rates in favour of their family firms namely
M/s Baldeva Traders, M/s Gulati Brothers and M/s Rajiv Enterprises. A1
Manish Gulati is alleged to have himself forged the quotation of M/s
Gupta Trading and M/s Srikrishna Enterprises and used them to cheat the
MCD so as to obtain repair work allotted by Auto Work Shop on non
competitive rates. CBI, accordingly registered the instant case RC on the
basis of source information under section 120B r/w 420 IPC and section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
2. During investigation it has transpired that M/s Baldeva Traders was
established in the year 1996 by Sh. Baldeva Raj Gulati i.e. the father of
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati 2025.08.13
16:08:30 +0530 Page No. 2 of 31
A1 and his brother Rajiv Gulati. Baldeva Raj Gulati expired in 1997.
Thereafter, A1 became one of the director of the firm alongwith his
brother namely Rajiv Gulati. M/s Gulati Brothers was established in the
year 1998 by Ms. Sudarshan Kanta Gulati i.e. the mother of A1 and she
being the proprietor. In the year 1998, she executed a GPA in the name of
her son Sh. Rajiv Gulati. M/s Rajiv Enterprises was established in 1997
and ran by Sh. Rajiv Gulati only until he expired in the year 2003.
3. After culmination of investigation instant chargesheet was filed for
the commission of offences punishable under section 120B r/w section
420/468/471 IPC. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 26.04.2006 and
both the accused persons were summoned to face trial. Vide order dated
06.07.2006 both the accused persons were admitted to bail and copy of
the chargesheet was supplied to them. On 21.12.2006 charge for the
offences punishable under section 120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC and
section 420/468/471 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter
proceeded for recording of prosecution evidence. Vide order dated
20.12.2017 co-accused ‘A'(name concealed) was declared juvenile.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support
of its case.
5. PW-1 Dharampal Singh, was posted as a UDC on 17.01.2002 at
Land Management Section, Coordination, DDA and on that day
documents were seized by CBI officers vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A
Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date: 2025.08.13
Page No. 3 of 31
16:08:35 +0530
and details of the documents are mentioned from serial no. 01-187.
6. In his cross examination he deposed that the said documents were
seized from the office of MCD, Civil Lines and he do not know the name
of Incharge of MCD Office/Section and have no knowledge about the
documents which were seized; he did not know in whose possession the
said document were lying and who had produced the same for the
purpose of seizure by the CBI; he has no knowledge as to who had given
the necessary information to CBI for the purpose of seizure and raid; he
was told by his officer and he do not remember the name and designation
of that officer; CBI had not reached in his office in his presence and he
did not know the name of the officer who had produced the record to the
CBI; no officer from his department was present when the record as
mentioned in Ex.PW1/A was seized by the CBI; he cannot tell the
contents and relevancy of documents; CBI officers reached office of
MCD at about 11:00 AM and left the same at about 4-5 PM; no public
person was called for the purpose of joining and concerned MCD official
were present there at the time of seizure; his statement was not recorded
by CBI officials nor CBI officials had recorded statement of any other
person in his presence.
7. PW-2 Anand Swaroop deposed that on 23.09.2003 on the direction
of his Senior Officers, he had visited the CBI office at Lodhi Road and on
that day specimen handwriting and signatures of Manish Gulati and Rishi
Guliat were taken by the CBI officer in his presence; specimen
handwriting and signatures sheet of Manish Gulati marked as S-18 to S-
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati 16:08:40 +0530 Page No. 4 of 31
32 are exhibited as Ex.PW2/A1 to A-15.
8. In his cross examination he deposed that CBI had not sent any
notice by his name for calling him at CBI office; a list was received from
CBI office by his E.E. Incharge containing names of the officers of our
office; the said communication did not contain any information regarding
the purpose for which they were called at CBI office, however, date and
time was mentioned; he alone had gone to CBI office on 23.09.2003 from
his office and reached there at about 4:30 am or 05:00 am; he duly
recorded his entry in the CBI office and he remained at reception at
around 4-5 hours; at about 10:30 am to 11:00 am some person from
office came at the reception and he accompanied him to the CBI office;
he was sent to one Mr. Ansari and there were two persons present with
Mr. Ansari and material was given by Inspector Ansari for writing; 30-35
copies were given for writing and same number of copies were given for
signature; no public person was called at the time of taking handwriting
and signature; he remained in the office for about 2-3 hours; his statement
was not recorded by CBI.
9. PW-3 Chiranji Lal Kaushik deposed that he was running M/s
Modern Automotive Agency and M/s Kaushik Bros as proprietor for last
many years and he had made his grandson Sh. Umesh Kaushik as
proprietor of M/s Modern Automotive Agency since, 2003; his grandson
use to assist him in his business; they were registered for doing the work
in MCD Auto Workshop and challans/ bills and the quotations were used
to be prepared by him or his grandson Umesh; document D-2/4 is marked
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date: Page No. 5 of 31
2025.08.13
16:08:44 +0530
as D-2/4 and document D-2/5 is marked as D-2/5. Nothing material came
on record in the cross examination of this PW qua A1.
10. PW-4 Anil Goyal deposed that he is the proprietor of M/s Goyal
Automobiles and the said firm was started by him in the year 1993 and
was closed in the year 1998; his firm was registered with the MCD Auto
Workshops; document D-2/2 and D-2/3 were not written and signed by
him and he never dealt with city zone. Nothing material came on record
in the cross examination of this PW qua A1.
11. PW-5 Mahender Kumar Gupta deposed that he was running M/s
Gupta Trading Company since 1979 and he is the proprietor of the said
firm; he used to supply the auto spare parts to various government
departments and his firm was registered with the MCD Auto Workshops
for supplying the material since 1981; document Mark D-2/ and the body
writing and signatures encircled as Q12 therein were not written or
signed by him; the letter head appears to be of his proprietorship concern
as the sales tax number and address are correctly mentioned; he had not
given the blank letter head to any person nor have submitted any such
quotation with Executive Engineer, MCD, City Zone; he do not know as
to who submitted this quotation. In his cross examination he deposed that
they do not maintain the carbon copy of the quotation submitted in the
MCD for their record; he cannot tell as to how many persons, his
employee Rajan had given letter head of his firm.
12. PW-6 Krishan Kumar Goyal deposed that he is running a
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 6 of 31
16:08:48
+0530
partnership firm M/s Auto Tools India since the year 1983; they are
registered with the MCD since 1984; document D-2/6 (body writing and
signatures encircled Q38), D2/9 (body writing and signatures encircled
Q41) and D2/11 (body writing and signatures encircled Q77) were not
written and signed by him or his partner. Nothing material came on
record in the cross examination of this PW qua A1.
13. PW-7 K.P. Singh deposed that on 29.08.2002 he was posted as
Head Clerk in Internal Audit Department, MCD, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
and on that day on the instructions of his Senior Internal Audit Officer he
took the photocopy of the audit report no. CA/F&G/2000/297 dated
23.02.2002 containing 61 sheets and handed over the same to Inspector
M.M. Ansari, CBI; the said report is Ex.PW7/A; the preceding sheet of
Ex.PW7/A bears the signature of M.P. Sharma, Chief Accountant cum
FA, MCD; the production cum seizure memo is Ex.PW7/B. This PW was
not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to A1.
14. PW-8 Umesh Kaushik deposed that he is the proprietor of M/s
Modern Automotive (the deposition of this witness has not been
discussed further as Mark D-2/4 i.e. Q33 (Ex.PW10/B-21) and Mark D-
2/5 i.e. Q35 (Ex.PW10/B-24) i.e. the quotations on behalf of M/s Kaushik
Brothers does not pertains to A1.
15. PW-9 Dayal Saran Thakur deposed that on 19.05.2005 he received
a notice from CBI and he visited the CBI office at Lodhi Road; on that
day specimen handwriting and signature of Manish Gulati alongwith
Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date: Page No. 7 of 31
2025.08.13
16:08:53 +0530
other co-accused were taken in his presence; specimen handwriting and
signature of Manish Gulati with marking S-93 to S-113 are Ex.PW9/B-1
to Ex.PW9/B-21 bears his signatures at Point A on all pages; he has
correctly identified the accused present in the court. Nothing material
came on record in the cross examination of this PW qua A1.
16. PW-10 M.C. Joshi deposed that the document of this case was
submitted for scientific opinion by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide its
letter no. 1570 and 2419/3/02/ACB/DLI dated 23.02.2005 and
21.03.2005 and the same are Ex.PW10/A-1 and Ex.PW10/A-2
respectively; in the document D-2, the questioned documents pertaining
to A1 are marked as Q10 (Ex.PW10/B1), Q12 (Ex.PW10/B3), Q13
(Ex.PW10/B4), Q16 (Ex.PW10/B7), Q19 (Ex.PW10/B10), Q21
(Ex.PW10/B12), Q22 (Ex.PW10/B13), Q24 (Ex.PW10/B15), Q28
(Ex.PW10/B16), Q31 (Ex.PW10/B19), Q34 (Ex.PW10/B23), Q36
(Ex.PW10/B25), Q37 (Ex.PW10/B26), Q39 (Ex.PW10/B28) and Q75
(Ex.PW10/B36); all these questioned documents were examined by him
and each of the documents bears the official stamp of GEQD; scientific
opinion no. CX-57/2005 dated 31.03.2005 is Ex.PW10/C1; the writings
and signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q1, Q4,
Q10, Q12, Q13, Q16, Q19, Q21, Q22, Q24, Q28, Q31, Q34, Q36, Q37,
Q39, Q51, Q59, Q69, Q72 and Q75 and S18 to S32 (Ex.PW2/A1 to
Ex.PW2/A15) and S93 to S113 (Ex.PW9/B1 to Ex.PW9/B21) have been
written by one and the same person; the reason of his opinion are on
Ex.PW10/C2; after completion of examination, all the documents come
with opinion and reasons were returned to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13 Page No. 8 of 31
16:08:58 +0530
vide letter no. CX-57/2005/14 and the said letter is Ex.PW10/C3. This
PW was not cross examined despite opportunity being afforded to A1.
17. PW-11 Mukesh Kumar deposed that he took the investigation from
Inspector M.M. Ansari, who was the initial IO and he recorded the
statement of witnesses on the basis of documents seized by him; he
obtained the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused; vide
Ex.PW10/A questioned documents alongwith specimen and admitted
handwriting were sent to GEQD for opinion; additional questioned
documents as well as some other specimen were also forwarded to
GEQD vide letter Ex.PW10/A2; vide Ex.PW11/A Ct. Ashish Kumar was
deputed to collect the expert opinion and other documents from GEQD,
Chandigarh and accordingly, ExPW10/C1 and Ex.PW10/C3 were
collected; vide Ex.PW10/A2 he had sent alongwith it a questionnaire
Ex.PW11/B and additional specimen handwriting already Ex.PW9/B1 to
Ex.PW9/B21 and Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A21 to GEQD; thereafter, the
CBI received the expert opinion Ex.PW10/C1 to Ex.PW10/C3; after
receiving all the relevant documents and documents collected by previous
IO and statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC he filed the
chargesheet.
18. In his cross examination deposed that Sh. M.M. Ansari had handed
over to him his case diary file and all the related documents collected by
him during the course of investigation conducted by him; all the tenders
in the form of spot quotation were called in this case in the year 1998-
1999; spot quotation is to simplify the procedure of work award and to
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati 2025.08.13
16:09:02 +0530 Page No. 9 of 31
cut short the time taken in inviting bids through tendering process; the
procedure of spot quotation was adopted by the MCD Auto Workshop in
order to get their vehicles repaired in time so that the services are not
suffered, in this way instead of floating the formal tenders notices were
published in their offices and the willing parties used to submit their
quotation in reply to these notices; conclusion of investigation revealed
that the offences of cheating and forgery and the irregularities on the part
of award of work through spot quotation were not detected; photocopy of
resolution number 190 dated 11.07.2001 and decision number 617 of the
Standing Committee, MCD dated 04.12.1990 are marked as Mark
PW11/D1 (front and back).
19. PW-11 Mukesh Kumar further deposed that to his memory Sh.
Rajiv Gulati and his family members were running the firms M/s Baldev
Traders, M/s Gulati Brothers and M/s Rajiv Enterprises; he had
investigated regarding the ownership of the abovesaid firms; he do not
remember whether he had seized the documents pertaining to the
ownership of abovesaid firms or not; he cannot say whether accused
Manish Gulati was the owner of any of the abovesaid firms at the
relevant time or not; it is mentioned in the chargesheet that Sh. Baldev
Raj Gulati and his son Rajiv Gulati had established and ran the firm M/s
Baldev Traders and in the year 1997 after the demise of Sh. Baldev Raj
Gulati accused Manish Gulati became its director; as per Ex.PW7/A i.e.
the special audit report, M/s Baldev Traders, M/s Gulati Brothers and M/s
Rajiv Enterprises were categorized as unauthorized dealers and
unapproved firms; as per the investigation carried out from the MCD
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 10 of 31
16:09:06
+0530
officials, whose name he was unable to recall, it was revealed that the
procurement of spare and repair was got done on the basis of competitive
quotations called from different firms either approved or unapproved for
the price competitiveness; as per the records, the work has been awarded
to these firms on the basis of quotations submitted with the office of
concerned Executive Engineer ‘Auto’ of the concerned zones of the
MCD; as in the present matter, the chargesheet relates to offence of
cheating and forgery therefore the statements of MCD officials who had
assigned jobs to the abovesaid firms had not been relied upon; after
seeing Mark PW11/D1, the name of M/s Baldeva Traders is not
mentioned in the said resolution; it is correct that in case of any payment
made on behalf of MCD, the same used to be the prior sanctioned by
accountant/ AE/ EE/ Assistant Chief Accountant and that the payment
used to be made by the MCD on the basis of quotations approved by the
aforesaid officials after tallying with the quotations submitted by
Quotation Clerk of the MCD; he do not recall the total payment made to
M/s Baldeva Traders by MCD; as per the office record accused Manish
Gulati was one of the directors in M/s Baldeva Traders and it is correct
that M/s Baldeva Traders has not been chargesheeted.
20. PW-11 Ram Saran Sharma deposed that was posted as a UDC on
17.01.2002 at Land Management Section, Coordination, DDA and on
that day documents were seized by CBI officers vide seizure memo
already Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination he deposed that he had
joined the search team on the written instructions of his senior officers;
he signed Ex.PW1/A after going through the same.
Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 16:09:11
Date: Page No. 11 of 31
2025.08.13
+0530
21. PW-12 M.M. Ansari deposed that the RC in the present case is
Ex.PW12/A; letter received from the Office of MCD, Internal Audit
Department (H/Q), Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi regarding
supply of record relating to Chief Auditor Report 1997-1998 is
Ex.PW12/B; he has also deposed about the investigation conducted by
the then Inspector S.Q. Ali, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and all the documents
seized by Inspector S.Q. Ali were handed over to him; he also obtained
specimen handwriting and specimen signatures of the accused persons.
22. In his cross examination he deposed that Ex.PW7/A which
includes the special audit report is the photocopy of the same; as far as he
remember he asked for the original special audit report from the MCD;
MCD had given the photocopy of the special audit report to the CBI; he
denied that he collided with the guilty MCD officials and for that reason
he did not obtain the original of the special audit report; he denied that
there is a difference in photocopy of special audit report and its original
thereof.
23. Thereafter, PE was closed on 07.02.2024. Statement of accused
under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 27.04.2024 and DE was closed
on 22.01.2025. Thereafter, final arguments in the matter were heard on
behalf of both the sides on various dates of hearing.
24. Ld. PP for the CBI in support of his contentions has filed on record
the judgments tilted as R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple And Another, reported as 2003 SCC
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13 Page No. 12 of 31
16:09:16 +0530
OnLine SC 1117; Sonu Alias Amar vs. State of Haryana, reported as
2017 SCC OnLine SC 765; P.C. Purshothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal,
reported as 1971 SCC OnLine SC 413; Mahavir & Ors vs. State of U.P
being Criminal Appeal No. 1820/2004 decided by Hon’ble Ahallabad
High Court on 28.04.2017; Arvind Singh vs. State of Maharashtra
reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 400; Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs
And Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs and Others reported
as 2013 SCC OnLine SC 101. State of UP vs. Nahar Singh, reported as
1998 SCC OnLine 775, Mahavir Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported as
2014 SCC OnLine SC 476 and Aswini Kalita vs. State of Assam
reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 724. Prosecution has also filed on
record written final arguments.
25. I have heard Ld. PP for the CBI/ Prosecution, Ld. counsel for the
accused and have also carefully gone through the case file including the
judgments relied upon and written final arguments of the prosecution.
26. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the
prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable
doubts. The standard of proof is not the preponderance of probabilities
but proof beyond reasonable doubt. Initial burden of proof as regards
prosecution in criminal trial is upon the prosecution and it never shifts
upon the accused. It is well settled legal proposition that any benefit of
doubt goes in favour of the accused.
27. In the present case, charge for the commission of offences
punishable under section 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and for substantive
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati DEEPAK KUMAR
Date: Page No. 13 of 31
KUMAR 2025.08.13
16:09:21
+0530
offences thereof was framed against the accused herein namely Manish
Gulati and it is necessary to briefly discuss the existing provisions of law
relating to the offences in question.
28. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
–Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
29. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Ors. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Ors.
Crl. App. No.238 of 2019 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that :
“The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are
as follows:
i. a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section
415; and
ii. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed
or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security”.
30. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of Penal
Code. Section 415 of Penal Code reads as:
“Section 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Page No. 14 of 31
Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.13
16:09:26 +0530
person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the
persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to “cheat”.
31. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i. There should fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him;
ii. (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to
delivery any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced
should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; andiii. in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should
be one, which cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the
person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for
offence. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the
deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or
implied in the nature of transactions itself.
33. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as
under :-
“Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record
or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support
any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property,
or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent
to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits
forgery”.
34. The making of false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. It
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13 Page No. 15 of 31
16:09:31 +0530
is reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
“464. Making a false document: – A person is said to make a
false document or false electronic record –
First – Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or
the authenticity of the [electronic signature],with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed”
35. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused
should have made a false document. The false document must be made
with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of
public or to any community. Further the expression ‘intent to defraud’
implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause
injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the
deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some
legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property.
The term ‘forgery’ as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular
acceptation. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence
to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is
made with specified intention. The relevant questions are (i) is the
document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an
intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the
accused is guilty. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati
DEEPAK KUMAR Page No. 16 of 31
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:09:36 +0530
documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or
fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation
of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must
be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the
other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in
part, however, small. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to
cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or
fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document
was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
36. Section 24 of the Penal Code defines “dishonestly” as whoever
does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person
or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Further, “Fraudulently” is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to
do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not
otherwise. The word “defraud” includes an element of deceit. Deceit is
not an ingredient of the definition of the word “dishonestly” while it is an
important ingredient of the definition of the word “fraudulently”. The
former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by
construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two
expressions “dishonestly” and “fraudulently” used in the various sections
of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of
one may give colour to the other.
37. Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in
Section 468 IPC. It is reproduced as under:-
“Whoever, commits forgery, intending that the [document or
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati DEEPAK KUMAR Page No. 17 of 31
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:09:40 +0530
electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a terms which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
38. Section 471 IPC deals with using of forged documents as genuine.
It is reproduced as under:
“471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic
record].–Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine
any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has
reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic
record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such [document or electronic record.”
39. At the outset, on the basis of record available including the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses, this court is of the considered
opinion that the allegations against the accused Manish Gulati that he had
criminally conspired with other co-accused for obtaining 80% of the
work allotted by Auto Work Shop of MCD on non competitive rates in
favour of his family firms namely M/s Baldev Traders, M/s Gulati
Brothers and M/s Rajiv Enterprises could not have been possible without
the connivance of MCD officials. IO seems to have chosen easier path to
implicate the accused herein without actually conducting the
investigation qua the roles of MCD officials and more specifically about
Sh. Ram Kishan (Auto) Executive Engineer, Civil Line Zone; Sh.
Rajveer, JE; Sh. Brij Lal, Accountant; Sh. M.K. Gupta, Account Clerk;
Sh. Naresh, Storekeeper; Sh. Shomesh Bhardwaj, Storekeeper, Sh. B.D.
Dogra, Assistant Foreman, Civil Lines, Auto Workshop nor they have
been examined as the witnesses. Interestingly, instant case RC was
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 18 of 31
16:09:45
+0530
registered on the basis of source information for investigating the
irregularities and malpractices in Auto Workshop, MCD, City Zone and
Rohini Zone. However, the IO seems to have deviated from the path of
investigating the irregularities and malpractices and took a different path
altogether i.e. investigating the accused persons herein. Strangely enough,
the IO had come to the conclusion that irregularities in awarding the work
could not be detected and concluded that the investigation revealed the
commission of offences of cheating and forgery by the accused persons.
On the contrary, IO has mentioned in the chargesheet about the lapses
committed by the Executive Engineer, inspite of that, he alongwith other
MCD officials were kept in column number 12 of the chargesheet. It
seems that IO has taken contradictory stand while doing the investigation
and while actually concluding it. There is nothing on record to suggest
that any attempt to obtain sanction for prosecuting them under the
Prevention of Corruption Act was ever made as the chargesheet is silent
in this regard.
40. Moreover, no explanation has come on record from the CBI
regarding the non placing of documents i.e. Q1, Q4, Q51, Q59, Q69 and
Q72 on record. As per Ex.PW10/C-1 these documents alongwith
documents Q10 (Ex.PW10/B1), Q12 (Ex.PW10/B3), Q13
(Ex.PW10/B4), Q16 (Ex.PW10/B7), Q19 (Ex.PW10/B10), Q21
(Ex.PW10/B12), Q22 (Ex.PW10/B13), Q24 (Ex.PW10/B15), Q28
(Ex.PW10/B16), Q31 (Ex.PW10/B19), Q34 (Ex.PW10/B23), Q36
(Ex.PW10/B25), Q37 (Ex.PW10/B26), Q39 (Ex.PW10/B28) and Q75
(Ex.PW10/B36) alongwith S18 to S32 (Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A15) and
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13 Page No. 19 of 31
16:09:51 +0530
S93 to S113 (Ex.PW9/B1 to Ex.PW9/B21) were written by one and the
same person i.e. accused namely Manish Gulati. It is not the case of the
CBI that these documents i.e. Q1, Q4, Q51, Q59, Q69 and Q72 have
been misplaced by them and there is nothing on record to suggest that
after examination these were not sent to the CBI by the GEQD. In this
regard, Ex.PW10/C-3 is trite to be referred here as per which all the
documents concerned alongwith opinion were sent by the GEQD to the
CBI. By non placing of abovesaid documents it seems that something has
been hidden/ concealed from this court by the CBI and a doubt has
occurred in the prosecution story in favour of accused.
41. It is settled law that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to do
just and fair investigation. The investigation should be conducted in
impartial manner and the only aim should be to unearth the truth and
place it before the Court. The Investigating Agency cannot be the mouth
piece of the complainant, wherein, the investigation is conducted with the
presumption that the complaint is true and the accused is at fault, merely
because a complaint has been filed against him. It is duty of the
Investigating Agency to find out the veracity and truthfulness of the
complaint and also to do the investigation on the issues as raised by the
accused against the complaint during investigation. Moreover, the
investigation cannot be left at the whims and fancies of IO which has
been the case in the present matter.
42. The testimonies of the PWs are also silent on the aspect of
identification of accused Manish Gulati as the person who had used the
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 20 of 31
16:09:56
+0530
forged quotation with the MCD. In the criminal trial the identity of an
accused is of paramount importance. However, in the present case none
of the prosecution witness has identified the accused Manish Gulati or
were made to identify him as the person as the one who had used the
alleged forged documents. There is no evidence on record to connect
accused Manish Gulati with the use of alleged forged documents.
43. As regards the offence of cheating, it is not clear from the
testimonies of the PWs as to whom and how much wrongful loss has
been caused. None of the witnesses including PW-5 Mahender Kumar
Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Gupta Trading Company, have deposed about
the quantum of loss caused to him/them or to the MCD allegedly due to
the acts of the accused or of any corresponding wrongful gain to him to
accused Manish Gulati. It is further not clear whether as to which tender/
contract went to which firm due to the alleged acts on part of the accused.
PW-5 Mahender Kumar Gupta has nowhere stated about the factum of
cheating by the accused Manish Gulati. He has nowhere deposed that M/s
Baldeva Traders was awarded a contract which could have been awarded
to his firm, if the alleged acts had not been committed by the accused
Manish Gulati. No witness from the firm M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises
was brought to the witness box by the CBI.
44. Strong reliance has been placed by the CBI on the audit report
Ex.PW7/A. However, the audit report has not been proved in accordance
with the rules of evidence. In this regard provisions of the Evidence Act
qua the proof of documentary evidence assumes importance.
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 21 of 31
16:10:01
+0530
45. As per section 61 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the contents of
documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
As per Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act, primary evidence means the
document itself is produced for the inspection of the court. In case, the
party is unable to produce the document itself, they are required to prove
the document by leading secondary evidence under Section 63 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act mentions the
documents which can be considered in secondary evidence. Section of
the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under:
“Secondary evidence.-Secondary evidence means and (1)
Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
contained1,1,” (2) Copies made from the original by
mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy
of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) Copies
made from or compared with the original; (4) Counterparts of
documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5)
Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some
person who has himself seen it.”
46. As per section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act documents must be
proved by primary documents except in cases mentioned in section 65 of
the Evidence Act. It is not the case of CBI/prosecution that original audit
report was not available with the MCD as the same is evident from the
testimony i.e. cross examination of PW-12 M.M. Ansari wherein he has
deposed that ‘as far as he remember he asked the original special report
from the MCD. It is correct that MCD department had given the
photocopy of special audit report to the CBI. He do not remember at this
stage if he had made any second reference to the MCD to provide him the
original special audit report. He had not taken any coercive or legal
action against the officials of MCD, who failed to provide the original of
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati DEEPAK KUMAR Page No. 22 of 31
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:10:08 +0530
the special audit report’. Thus, it is clear from the above testimony that
for the reasons best known to the IO, the audit report was not seized nor
its original was brought on record during the trial. Therefore, the claim of
CBI qua audit report Ex.PW7/A does not fall within the conditions as
enumerated in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the
same the audit report Ex.PW7/A has not been proved in accordance with
law.
47. It is settled proposition of law that a fact can be proved either by a
direct or indirect evidence. In the present case the authenticity of the
document Ex.PW7/A i.e. audit report no. CA/F&G/2000/297 dated
23.02.2002 could have been proved by the person who had prepared
and/or signed the same or by the person who may have seen the persons
signing and/ or preparing the said document. In this regard, the testimony
of PW-7 K.P. Singh assumes relevance as in his examination in chief he
has deposed that he took the photocopy of the audit report no.
CA/F&G/2000/297 dated 23.02.2002 containing 61 sheets and deposited
the same and handed over to Sh. M.M. Ansari, Inspector of Police, CBI,
ACB, New Delhi. He has referred to the sheet preceding to Ex.PW7/A
bearing the signatures of M.P. Sharma, Chief Accountant cum FA, MCD
and identified the same.
48. On careful perusal of his testimony and Ex.PW7/A it becomes
clear that he has proved the circulation of audit report to its addressees.
PW-7 has nowhere identified the signatures of Sh. A.K. Patnaik, the
Chief Auditor and of Sh. T.R. Magoo, Additional Deputy Chief Auditor,
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Page No. 23 of 31
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:10:12 +0530
MCD as are appearing on Ex.PW7/A. Again for the best reasons known
to the IO the Chief Auditor and the Additional Deputy Cheif Auditor,
MCD were not arrayed as witnesses. As regards, the contention that no
objection was taken on behalf of accused when PW-7 was being
examined, it is trite to mention here that during the recording of
testimony of PW-12 M.M. Ansari the objection was taken during his
cross examination regarding the seizure of photocopy of the audit report
and non asking for the original audit report from the MCD. PW-12 M.M.
Ansari was the same officer, who had seized the photocopy of the said
audit report from PW-7.
49. It is settled law that merely exhibiting a document does not mean
that the same has been proved as per the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act. Ex.PW7/A does not fall in any of the category of
secondary evidence as provided under section 63 of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.PW7/A being photocopy is inadmissible in evidence and has not been
duly proved. In Sudhir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd
1995 II AD (DELHI) 189 it has been held that ‘merely marking of the
exhibits by the witness, it cannot be said that the same has been proved in
accordance with law’. In the present case PW-7 had merely handed over
the copy of audit report i.e. Ex.PW7/A to the IO of the case, he has not
made that document nor he had seen when that document was being
made and he has not identified the signatures of the persons appearing on
Ex.PW7/A.
50. As regards the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120A
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 24 of 31
16:10:17
+0530
IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by
illegal means. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general
law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit
crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only
the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of
intention, which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of
conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish,
howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Conspiracy
is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and
the conduct of the accused.
51. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy
then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission,
and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out
their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who
joins in the agreement. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not
necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may
further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. What part
each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to
when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
52. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the essence of the crime of conspiracy.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati KUMAR 2025.08.13 Page No. 25 of 31 16:10:21 +0530
Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no
agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It
is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of
conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need
not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the
circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. It has been seen that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership
in crime and that it is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. A man may join a conspiracy by word or
by deed.
53. A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist
and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series
of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence
till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A
crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing
of the moment. This means that everything said, written or done by any
of the conspirator in execution or any part of it is deemed to have been
said, done and written by each of them.
54. In a case reported as V. R. Nedunchezhian Vs. State: 2000
Cr.L.J.976 Their Lordships observed in para 69 as under:
It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain; where each party
performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that
aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal
objectives of the conspiracy.
55. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors: JT 1993
(3) SC 203 it has been observed that it is not necessary that each
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati DEEPAK KUMAR Page No. 26 of 31
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:10:25 +0530
conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at
every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of
the conspiracy.
56. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present
case, I may observe that there is no evidence on record to show that there
was a prior meeting of mind of accused Manish Gulati with other
persons. An offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have
been established on the mere suspicion or inference which are not
supported by any cogent evidence when was there a prior meeting of
mind or an agreement to do an illegal act as alleged does not stand
established at all. In view of the above, I hold that the aspect of criminal
conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for which
benefit is being given to the accused Manish Gulati.
57. It is the the case of the CBI itself that accused Manish Gulati was
one of the director in M/s Baldeva Traders but in the chargesheet he has
been impleaded in his individual capacity. As per the contents of the
chargesheet and the cross examination of PW-11 Mukesh Kumar accused
Manish Gulati became director of M/s Baldeva Traders in the year 1997
after the demise of Sh. Baldev Raj Gulati. Even if vicarious liability was
sought to be imposed against the accused, the prosecution need to show
that accused was in full control of entire affairs of the company/ firm and
that company/ firm should have been impleaded as an accused in the
present case. Again for the reasons best known to the IO he choose not to
implead the company/ firm namely M/s Baldeva Traders as an accused in
Digitally signed
the present case. DEEPAK
by DEEPAK
KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.13
16:10:30
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati +0530 Page No. 27 of 31
58. The concept of ‘alter ego’ has not been taken into consideration by the
prosecution while filing the charge-sheet against the accused. It is settled
law that the director of a company cannot be dragged to the court merely
because of his position in the company. In order to make such officer
vicariously liable, it should be shown that he has role and responsibility
towards the act wherein the offences have been committed. In this regard,
judgment of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2015,
Supreme Court of India is apt to be referred here, wherein the concept of
‘alter ago’ of the company was deliberated upon and following
observations were made :-
“From the above it becomes evident that a corporation is
virtually in the same position as any individual and may be
convicted of common law as well as statutory offences
including those requiring mens rea. The criminal liability of a
corporation would arise when an offence is committed in
relation to the business of the corporation by a person or body
of persons in control of its affairs. In such circumstances, it
would be necessary to ascertain that the degree and control of
the person or body of persons is so intense that a corporation
may be said to think and act through the person or the body of
persons. The position of law on this issue in Canada is almost
the same. Mens rea is attributed to corporations on the principle
of “alter ego” of the company.
64. So far as India is concerned, the legal position has been
clearly stated by the Constitution Bench judgmentof this Court
in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
(2005) 4 SCC 530 . On a detailed consideration of the entire
body of case laws in this country as well as other jurisdictions,
it has been observed as follows: (SCC p. 541, para 6) “6. There
is no dispute that a company is liable to be prosecuted and
punished for criminal offences. Although there are earlier
authorities to the effect that corporations cannot commit a
crime, the generally accepted modern rule is that except for
such crimes as a corporation is held incapable of committing by
reason of the fact that they involve personal malicious intent, a
corporation may be subject to indictment or18 other criminal
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Digitally signed
by DEEPAK Page No. 28 of 31
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.13
16:10:35
+0530
process, although the criminal act is committed through its
agents.” It is abundantly clear from the above that the principle
which is laid down is to the effect that the criminal intent of the
“alter ego” of the company, that is the personal group of
persons that guide the business of the company, would be
imputed to the company/corporation. The legal proposition that
is laid down in the aforesaid judgment is that if the person or
group of persons who control the affairs of the company
commit an offence with a criminal intent, their criminality can
be imputed to thecompany as well as they are “alter ego” of the
company. In the present case, however, this principle is applied
in an exactly reverse scenario. Here, company is the accused
person and the learned Special Magistrate has observed in the
impugned order that since the appellants represent the directing
mind and will of each company, their state of mind is the state
of mind of the company and, therefore, on this premise, acts of
the company is attributed and imputed to the appellants. It is
difficult to accept it as the correct principle of law. As
demonstrated hereinafter, this proposition would run contrary
to the principle of vicarious liability detailing the circumstances
under which a direction of a company can be held liable.
(iii) Circumstances when Director/Person in charge of the
affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the
company is an accused person:
No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts
through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc.
If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it
would normally be the intent and action of that individual who
would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when
the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same
time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that
there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically
provides so.
Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an
offence on behalf of a company can be made accused, along
with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active
role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he
can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime
itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically
incorporating such a provision”.
59. On examination of the record of the present case and by applying
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date: Page No. 29 of 31
KUMAR 2025.08.13
16:10:39
+0530
the law laid down as above, I find that there is no overtact in the form of
omission or commission attributable to accused Manish Gulati on behalf
of the company/ firm namely M/s Baldeva Traders for committing the
offences in question so as to obtain the work orders from the MCD.
Therefore, accused Manish Gulati cannot be held vicariously liable just
for the reason that he has been the one of the directors of M/s Baldeva
Traders, on whose behalf the alleged offences in question were
committed. Prosecution was unable to implead M/s Baldeva Traders as
an accused inspite of their case that work orders were obtained from the
MCD by accused on its behalf. Though, as per Ex.PW10/B-3 (Q12) and
GEQD report Ex.PW10/C-1 the prosecution has been able to show that
the document Q12 was written by accused Manish Gulati but in the
present case there is no allegation against the accused that he obtained the
work on the basis of said alleged forgery for his personal gain. The case
of the CBI is that M/s Baldeva Traders had got work orders on the basis
of acts committed by accused Manish Gulati, who was one of its director.
Since, M/s Baldeva Traders has not been impleaded as an accused,
therefore, accused Manish Gulati cannot be held responsible for the
alleged acts committed by him for M/s Baldeva Traders.
60. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite clear that the basic
premise on which the CBI was prosecuting the instant case stands on a
shaky footing, due to which it has fallen like pack of cards.
61. In view of the foregoing discussion, a doubt has crepted in the
prosecution story in favour of the accused Manish Gulati and hence, his
false implication cannot be completely ruled out. It is settled law that if
Digitally signed
CBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Page No. 30 of 31
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.13
16:10:43 +0530
two views are possible then the view favouring the accused is to be
adopted and in case of doubt the benefit is to be given to the accused.
Accused cannot be convicted on presumptions or surmises, rather, all the
ingredients of the offences punishable under section 120B r/w
420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences thereof are required to be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
62. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and
circumstances, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this
court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
offences for which charges were framed against accused Manish Gulati.
Hence, accused Manish Gulati is acquitted of the offences punishable
under section 120B r/w 420/468/471 IPC and substantive offences
thereof i.e. the offences for which he was charged with.
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.13
16:10:50 +0530Announced in the open Court (DEEPAK KUMAR-II)
on 13.08.2025 CJM/RACC/NDCBI/ 164/2019 CBI vs. Manish Gulati Page No. 31 of 31